Laserfiche WebLink
APPEAL OF JOHN D. NEWBOLD <br /> QUARRY EXCAVATION APPLICATION NO. QX-90-1 <br /> OF CLAUDE C. WOOD CO. <br /> Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) get together and work out <br /> a compromise" on mitigation measures involving the site ' s <br /> wetland areas. <br /> Response: <br /> As noted in the Response to Appeal statement number three, the <br /> Planning Commission adopted the Conditions of Approval that <br /> were developed from the EIR' s mitigation measures. The EIR <br /> consultant stated at the hearing that specific mitigation <br /> measures developed for the wetland areas and attributed to the <br /> CDFG were, in fact, developed by the consultant ' s staff to <br /> anticipate the requirements of the CDFG. This was done <br /> because the CDFG provided no specific mitigation measures, <br /> only requiring notification to and agreements with the <br /> Department. Noting this information, the Commission informed <br /> the applicant that discussions with the CDFG might result in <br /> different mitigations, however, those new measures would have <br /> to be presented to the Planning Commission for approval before <br /> the adopted Conditions of Approval could be modified. <br /> 5 . Appeal Statement: <br /> The appellant states that the EIR failed to adequately address <br /> the cumulative impacts of this project, as well as the <br /> applicant ' s previously approved project on the Mokelumne <br /> River. For this reason the approval should be rescinded and <br /> reviewed to provide additional specific mitigation measures to <br /> protect the river, including the construction of spawning beds <br /> upstream from the project site. <br /> Response: <br /> The appellant provides no specific evidence in his appeal to <br /> substantiate the claim that the EIR failed to adequately <br /> address the project' s cumulative impacts on the local <br /> environment. Regarding the additional recommended mitigation <br /> measure, the appellant has failed to establish a direct <br /> relationship between a specific project impact and the need to <br /> construct upstream spawning beds. <br /> 6 . Appeal Statement: <br /> The appellant states that the adopted Conditions of Approval <br /> do not go far enough in mitigating the project ' s effects on <br /> the river and providing environmental safeguards. He further <br /> BOS LETTER PAGE 4 <br />